In my opinion, the issue or question of the relevance of the study of language in language teaching is very similar to the question ‘Does one need to study mathematics or science in order to be able to teach these subjects better?’ Though it might seem like a short aside, I would like to first explore this question before coming to the language issue.
Two years back, I had the opportunity to undertake a study of teacher’s views and understanding about the subject matter of mathematics and its pedagogy. In the course of doing this study, I came across literature that explored the place of discipline or subject specific knowledge (in this case, mathematics) in classroom teaching. For instance, Skemp (1971 and later) highlighted the frustration of children who are mainly taught the ‘how’ when they actually want answers to the ‘why’. Liping Ma’s landmark comparative study (1999) of Chinese and American elementary school teachers brought the dimension of teacher preparation centre stage. Ma compared the situation of mathematics teachers in China and the United States. Using data from her study, she developed the notion of ‘profound mathematical understanding’ in teachers and stressed that this understanding is crucial to how they perceive mathematics and teach it. Based on her analysis, Ma then argued for ‘a connected, structured and longitudinally coherent knowledge of core mathematical ideas as an essential pre-requisite for any teacher’. In a similar vein, Deborah Ball et al (2005) state that ‘classroom problems are also mathematical problems’. This leads to the question: ‘What kinds of mathematical reasoning, insight, understanding and skill are required in the teaching of mathematics?’ The position taken by Ball is that the interactive work of teaching itself involves ‘knowledge of mathematical ideas skills of mathematical reasoning and communication, fluency with examples and terms…’ This requires additional mathematical insight and reasoning which involves ‘a kind of depth and detail that goes well beyond what is needed to carry out the algorithm reliably.’ This correlation was shown to exist on the basis of data collected for more than 700 teachers and 3000 students.
It is quite clear from the above examples that subject matter or disciplinary knowledge is considered to be critical for deeper more meaningful teaching leading to understanding. Along with this knowledge is the knowledge of how children learn. Together, these two aspects are integral to the preparation of the teacher. We can extend this case to the study of language and language teaching as well. In the case of teachers, this aspect would be considered to be an integral part of their education and preparation as teachers. For teacher educators and practitioners in general, this would mean developing sensitivity to how language works. For children, a teaching-learning process grounded in the principles of language learning may offer many possibilities for deepening their learning experience as well as for creative expression, among others. Just why is this kind of knowledge necessary in the case of language teaching and learning? I have tried to present some arguments below.
Much of what passes for as learning in primary and elementary school is traditionally measured in terms of the 3R’s (reading, writing and arithmetic). In educational practice, there is no dearth of small, medium and large scale quantitative surveys to ascertain whether children have acquired the 3R’s after, say five years, of schooling. Testing of children has almost become an obsession. Furthermore, with regard to language learning, in many cases the conventional practice is to break it up into ‘listening, speaking, reading and writing skills’ (the so-called L-S-R-W model) almost as if these skills are picked up in isolation of each other! This pre-occupation with measuring outputs, without paying sufficient attention to the processes of learning and other important aspects such as the resources children bring, their diverse backgrounds and narratives, reduces much of language learning to a mechanical ‘input-output’ model. We have seen this positivist, reductionistic approach since the ‘Minimum Levels of Learning’ (MLL) days of the nineties. The approach has continued in some form or the other to this day, though the term MLL itself may not be used as widely as before. It is in this larger context we must view the question of the relevance (or need) of the study of language to language teaching.
There are other issues that deserve attention as well. First, we tend to look at language as ‘another subject to be learnt’. I suppose this view reduces or even negates the potential that language learning offers for learning in general. Like in mathematics, where procedural knowledge is often emphasized at the cost of developing understanding, language teaching too suffers from a narrow view that places correctness of grammar and pronunciation above creative expression. This leads to a kind of mechanical classroom practice where error correction is given undue emphasis. The fact that children have mastered grammar long before they enter school is lost on teachers and also in the process of their preparation. Other notions (already pointed out in the reading provided for this assignment) include the myth of language purity, dialect inferiority, pride of place for certain ‘mother of all’ languages, multilingualism as a problem, etc. These notions are so deeply ingrained that they are rarely problematized as issues during teacher preparation.
The above observations may be categorized as those belonging to the realm of pedagogy on the one hand and on the other, larger (often unexamined) worldviews about people, language, culture, power, politics, and so on. Of course, these worldviews in turn influence education policy, teacher policy and classroom practice.
Given these observations, we must ask: What is the value in a study of language as part of a program on education? The first value addition is that such an endeavor may contribute in important ways to developing sensitivity and awareness in teachers and teacher educators as regards the equality and structural unity of languages. This might then lead to a respect for the diversity of languages. In turn, we could then start looking at multi-linguality and multiple socio-economic and cultural contexts as resources instead of considering them as burdensome problems to be dealt with through imposition of uniformity. Further, such a study could contribute to a deeper and informed understanding regarding the history and politics of language, and how language has been used as a tool for promoting vested interests. Also, in this regard, teachers and others could appreciate the rich and varied cultural history and resources that a country like India possesses.
In offering arguments for a study of language as part of language teaching or for a program on education, it may be important to ask: Is language to be treated as a separate subject? Does language development not have something fundamental to do with cognition itself? This view is articulated by Halliday (1994) that ‘When children learn language, they are not simply engaging in one kind of learning among many; rather they are learning the foundation of learning itself.’ If one wishes to take this position, then there is no escape from a study of language in any program of teaching or education.
References
Towards a language based theory of learning (M.A.K Halliday, 1994, source not specified)
The Psychology of Learning Mathematics (Richard Skemp, Penguin Publishers, London 1971)
Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics – Teachers’ understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Liping Ma, LEA Publishers, London 1999)
Knowing Mathematics for Teaching – Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? (Deborah Ball et al, American Educator, 2005)
Knowing mathematics for teaching – baseline study of practicing mathematics teachers (Sheshagiri K.M, 2007, Supported by Sir Ratan Tata Trust)
Two years back, I had the opportunity to undertake a study of teacher’s views and understanding about the subject matter of mathematics and its pedagogy. In the course of doing this study, I came across literature that explored the place of discipline or subject specific knowledge (in this case, mathematics) in classroom teaching. For instance, Skemp (1971 and later) highlighted the frustration of children who are mainly taught the ‘how’ when they actually want answers to the ‘why’. Liping Ma’s landmark comparative study (1999) of Chinese and American elementary school teachers brought the dimension of teacher preparation centre stage. Ma compared the situation of mathematics teachers in China and the United States. Using data from her study, she developed the notion of ‘profound mathematical understanding’ in teachers and stressed that this understanding is crucial to how they perceive mathematics and teach it. Based on her analysis, Ma then argued for ‘a connected, structured and longitudinally coherent knowledge of core mathematical ideas as an essential pre-requisite for any teacher’. In a similar vein, Deborah Ball et al (2005) state that ‘classroom problems are also mathematical problems’. This leads to the question: ‘What kinds of mathematical reasoning, insight, understanding and skill are required in the teaching of mathematics?’ The position taken by Ball is that the interactive work of teaching itself involves ‘knowledge of mathematical ideas skills of mathematical reasoning and communication, fluency with examples and terms…’ This requires additional mathematical insight and reasoning which involves ‘a kind of depth and detail that goes well beyond what is needed to carry out the algorithm reliably.’ This correlation was shown to exist on the basis of data collected for more than 700 teachers and 3000 students.
It is quite clear from the above examples that subject matter or disciplinary knowledge is considered to be critical for deeper more meaningful teaching leading to understanding. Along with this knowledge is the knowledge of how children learn. Together, these two aspects are integral to the preparation of the teacher. We can extend this case to the study of language and language teaching as well. In the case of teachers, this aspect would be considered to be an integral part of their education and preparation as teachers. For teacher educators and practitioners in general, this would mean developing sensitivity to how language works. For children, a teaching-learning process grounded in the principles of language learning may offer many possibilities for deepening their learning experience as well as for creative expression, among others. Just why is this kind of knowledge necessary in the case of language teaching and learning? I have tried to present some arguments below.
Much of what passes for as learning in primary and elementary school is traditionally measured in terms of the 3R’s (reading, writing and arithmetic). In educational practice, there is no dearth of small, medium and large scale quantitative surveys to ascertain whether children have acquired the 3R’s after, say five years, of schooling. Testing of children has almost become an obsession. Furthermore, with regard to language learning, in many cases the conventional practice is to break it up into ‘listening, speaking, reading and writing skills’ (the so-called L-S-R-W model) almost as if these skills are picked up in isolation of each other! This pre-occupation with measuring outputs, without paying sufficient attention to the processes of learning and other important aspects such as the resources children bring, their diverse backgrounds and narratives, reduces much of language learning to a mechanical ‘input-output’ model. We have seen this positivist, reductionistic approach since the ‘Minimum Levels of Learning’ (MLL) days of the nineties. The approach has continued in some form or the other to this day, though the term MLL itself may not be used as widely as before. It is in this larger context we must view the question of the relevance (or need) of the study of language to language teaching.
There are other issues that deserve attention as well. First, we tend to look at language as ‘another subject to be learnt’. I suppose this view reduces or even negates the potential that language learning offers for learning in general. Like in mathematics, where procedural knowledge is often emphasized at the cost of developing understanding, language teaching too suffers from a narrow view that places correctness of grammar and pronunciation above creative expression. This leads to a kind of mechanical classroom practice where error correction is given undue emphasis. The fact that children have mastered grammar long before they enter school is lost on teachers and also in the process of their preparation. Other notions (already pointed out in the reading provided for this assignment) include the myth of language purity, dialect inferiority, pride of place for certain ‘mother of all’ languages, multilingualism as a problem, etc. These notions are so deeply ingrained that they are rarely problematized as issues during teacher preparation.
The above observations may be categorized as those belonging to the realm of pedagogy on the one hand and on the other, larger (often unexamined) worldviews about people, language, culture, power, politics, and so on. Of course, these worldviews in turn influence education policy, teacher policy and classroom practice.
Given these observations, we must ask: What is the value in a study of language as part of a program on education? The first value addition is that such an endeavor may contribute in important ways to developing sensitivity and awareness in teachers and teacher educators as regards the equality and structural unity of languages. This might then lead to a respect for the diversity of languages. In turn, we could then start looking at multi-linguality and multiple socio-economic and cultural contexts as resources instead of considering them as burdensome problems to be dealt with through imposition of uniformity. Further, such a study could contribute to a deeper and informed understanding regarding the history and politics of language, and how language has been used as a tool for promoting vested interests. Also, in this regard, teachers and others could appreciate the rich and varied cultural history and resources that a country like India possesses.
In offering arguments for a study of language as part of language teaching or for a program on education, it may be important to ask: Is language to be treated as a separate subject? Does language development not have something fundamental to do with cognition itself? This view is articulated by Halliday (1994) that ‘When children learn language, they are not simply engaging in one kind of learning among many; rather they are learning the foundation of learning itself.’ If one wishes to take this position, then there is no escape from a study of language in any program of teaching or education.
References
Towards a language based theory of learning (M.A.K Halliday, 1994, source not specified)
The Psychology of Learning Mathematics (Richard Skemp, Penguin Publishers, London 1971)
Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics – Teachers’ understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Liping Ma, LEA Publishers, London 1999)
Knowing Mathematics for Teaching – Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? (Deborah Ball et al, American Educator, 2005)
Knowing mathematics for teaching – baseline study of practicing mathematics teachers (Sheshagiri K.M, 2007, Supported by Sir Ratan Tata Trust)
